egtei – expert group on techno-economic issuestftei.citepa.org/images/files/2013-02-05/2-e… ·...

EGTEI MethodologyWork to update costs for LCP

SO2, NOx and PM abatement techniques

4th meeting 5 February 2013

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

Agenda Results from the questionnaires (consumption figures, etc.),

Overview / Comparison Investment Data Questionnaire – EGTEI Functions & Co,

Still missing information / Data to be verified,

Presentation of the Excel tool (how it works, aim, etc.),

Work to be done in the next few months from the technical secretariat (biomass, excel-tool developments, ...),

Next meeting.

2

Plant characteristics

3

Results from the questionnaires : plant characteristics

4

Four questionnaires received with information completed in most of the cases

Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D

Portugal Not provided Not provided France

Capacity MWe 1256 220 220 600

Capacity MWth 2467 632 620 1500

Number of units 4 x 314 MWe 1 1 1

Operating hours 7500 7000 1326 5500

Fuel used Hard coal Brown coal Hard coal Hard coal

Sulphur content of fuel % 1.2 2 0.9 0.6

FGD LSFO investments

5

Results from the questionnaires for FGD

6

FGDPlant A Plant B Plant C Plant D

Investment FGD (LSFO) k€/MWth

77.922(2008/2009)

104.704 (1998)

80.042 (2001)

66.666 (1998)

Investment k€ 2010/MWth 77.922 175.056 111.811 111.407

Efficiency 94 96

87.5(But 95 %

with input/output)

86.4

Pollution control deviceAuxiliairy equipmentInstrument

XXX Not

providedNot

providedNot

providedProject definitionBuilding and civil worksPerformance testing

XXX

FGD complexity Complicated Complicated Average Complicated

Space, seismic zone,

winds

High S, (7 sprays)

Results from the questionnaires : FGD LSFO investments

7

FGD

Plant A

Plant B

Plant C Plant D

y = 1841.8x-0.397

020406080

100120140160180200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

k€/M

Wth

Thermal power MWth

k€/MWth


8

FGD

Inv cap 1 cap 1______ ______

Inv cap2 cap 2

=

P

P in the range 0.6 to 0.7

9

FGD

Plant A

Plant B

Plant D

y = 7302x-0.578

020406080

100120140160180200

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

k€/M

Wth

Thermal power MWth

k€/MWth


FGD LSFO investments collected

10

FGD

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Inve

stm

ent k

€/M

Wth

Thermal Power MWth

IEA data

CUE cost model

EGTEI DATA - 95 % eff.

EGTEI DATA - 90 % eff.

National lime association -high sulphur coalNational lime association -low sulphur coalPlant A

Plant B

Plant C

Plant D

EPA Base case

FGD investments collected: cost function determination

11

FGD

y = 1350.4x-0.336

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Inve

stm

ent k

€/M

Wth

Thermal Power MWth

FGD investments collected : cost function determination

12

FGD

y = 1350.4x-0.336

y = 7302x-0.578

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Inve

stm

ent k

€/M

Wth

Thermal Power MWth

FGD investment function to be retained?

13

Not enough data do define cost function able to distinguish the efficiency of the FGD

What function to select? Is it too early to select?

Do we try to collect other investments?

Can we have a better representation if we try to define two or more ranges of capacity?

The retrofit factor was 30 % in the current EGTEI methodology. The current data collected do not enable the definition of the retrofit factor. Do we continue with 30 % by default?

FGD LSFO variable costs

14

Variable operating costs : reagent consumption

15

Wet FGD with limestone forced oxidation:

SO2 + CaCO3 + ½ H2O CaSO3. ½H2O + CO2

CaSO3.½ H2O + ½ O2 + 1.5 H2O CaSO4.2H2O

1 mole CaCO3 abates 1 mole SO2. In terms of mass, the ratio Ca/S = 1, accounts to CaCO3 consumption of 1.5625 t CaCO3/t SO2

Current EGTEI methodology:Efficiency of SO2

removal ηt CaCO3/t SO2 abated Ratio Ca/Sinput

85.0% 1.41 0.9090.0% 1.48 0.9595.0% 1.59 1.02


16

Limestone is not pure:

With 95 % purity the consumption is as follows:

Efficiency of SO2

removal ηt limestone/t SO2

abatedRatio Ca/Sinput

85.0% 1.48 0.9090.0% 1.56 0.9595.0% 1.67 1.02

Aim of the questionnaire: Check with real data consumption the levels of consumption


17


Hard coal Brown coal Hard coal Hard coal

S content 1.2 2 0.9 0.6Efficiency 94 96 95 86.4Outlet concentration mg SO2/Nm3 145 285 176 169Data providedt reagent/t SO2 removed 0.98 1.8 1.54 1.6Limestone purity 96 96 96 94

Ca/S 1.3 Not provided

Not provided 0.88

Recalculation made by the secretariatt limestone/t SO2 removed (purity taken into account 0.94 1.73 1.48 1.50

Ca/S input scrubber recalculated from the factor t reagent/t SO2 removed and taking into account the purity of limestoneCa/Sinput (scrubber) 0.60 1.11 0.95 0.96


18

Efficiency of SO2

removal ηt CaCO3/t SO2 abated Ratio Ca/Sinput

85.0% 1.41 0.9090.0% 1.48 0.9595.0% 1.59 1.02

Data collectedPlant A : 94% 0.94 0.60Plant B : 96% 1.73 1.11Plant C : 95% 1.48 0.95

Plant D : 86.4% 1.5 0.96

Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected

84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98%0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

t CaCO3/t SO2 abated


19

Current EGTEI methodology

Plant DPlant B

Plant C

Plant A

Current EGTEI methodology compared to data collected


20

Limestone Prices

Purity% Prices € 2012/tPlant A

(Portugal) 96 11 to 16

Plant B 96 35.8Plant C 96 32Plant D (France) 94 40


21

Current EGTEI methodologyCurrent EGTEI methodology compared to data collectedNot enough data to establish other assumptions than those of the current EGTEI methodology

Conclusion:

Keep the current EGTEI parameters but consider the purity of limestone which is on average 95 %

Do you agree ?

Still to be obtained : percentage of S retained in ash?

Variable operating costs : water consumption

22

FGD Efficiency S % m3/hour annual

consumptionm3/t**reagent

Plant A 94 1.2 200 1500000 21

Plant B 96 2 51 355245 7

Plant C 95 0.9 25 à 60 66300* 8*

Plant D 86.4 0.62 61 334700 24

*Calculated by the secretariat based on 50 m3/h** Calculated by the secretariat to try to derive parameter easily usable in cost functions

What to conclude? Opposite figures? Can the perimeter used by the 4 plants, be different?

Water prices not collected

Variable operating costs : By-product production and elimination

23

According to chemical reaction theory,

1 t of CaCO3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO4,2H2O)

or 1.291 t of CaSO3.½H2O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained).


24


Limestone consumption t/year 72000 49620 8400 14170

Quantity of by-products produced

t by-product/yea

r128000 72000 92452

1150 t sludges + 21500 t gypsum

Price of by-products sold

€/t by-product - 0.15 à 2 - 1.5 for

gypsumPrices of by-products for waste disposal

€/t by-product 2 0.3319 3.75 89

Proportion sold/total amount of by-products

% 99.2 92.3 0 100

Ratio by-product/reagent 1.78 (1.85) 1.45 (1.5) 11.01? 1.6 (1.7)


25

According to chemical reaction theory,

1 t of CaCO3 gives 1.72 t of gypsum (CaSO4,2H2O)

or 1.291 t of CaSO3.½H2O (if the oxidation is not complete and sulphites only obtained).

It is proposed to keep the by-product production linked to the chemical theory.

What proportion of gypsum and liquid wastes? Example of plant D (about 5%)

Do you agree?

Variable operating costs : electricity consumption

26

Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant DCapacity MWe 1256 220 220 600Thermal Power MWth 2564 632 620 1500Operating power of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling)

MW 6.7 3.3 3.2 6.00

Operating power of other auxiliaries (absorption tower: spray headers, mist eliminator; by-products handling, slurry pumps, oxidation air compression…)

MW 6.5 4.7 not available 6.75

Average load of these equipments % 0.8 98.0

Electricity consumption MWh/year 98850* 55650*2055.3

Not complete

57375

Cost of electricity €/kWh 0.05 0.0955 0.05 0.001Installed capacity of fans and auxiliaries / plant capacity

1% 3.6% 2.1

Variable operating costs : electricity consumption

27

Data provided assume full use of the capacity of fans and auxiliaries during the operating hours. In plant D real consumption has been provided corresponding to a load of 80 %.

Sulphur content of coal Capacity of fans and auxiliaries to be used

1 % 1.1 %/Power plant capacity

2.25 % 1.5 %/Power plant capacity

The following data from IEA are proposed to be used as average values whatever the efficiencies are:

Do we have to include parameters to take into account the efficiency of FGD?

Variable operating costs : wages

28


Portugal Not provided

Not provided France

Labour intensity of FGD operation man-day/yr 8.2 9.9 2.0 not

provided

Labour cost €/man day 13.5 12.07 12.07 275

Plants B and C have the same capacity but very different labour intensity.There is no direct relation with the size of the plant. The labour costs provided by Plants A to C are probably expressed per hour as they appear very low compared to plant D. For validation : do we finally include wages in fixed operating costs?If not, what labour intensity do we consider? Is it constant whatever the size of the plant?

Fixed operating costs

29

Plant A 0.37%

Consider that some maintenance costs were covered by warranty period (4 years after PAC). The costs include labour and materials.

Plant B 1.2% Maintenance in 2011: 1 761 072 €Plant C Cannot be specifiedPlant D 0.00% Not provided

To be validated: do we continue with 4 % including labour cost?

4% seems to be too much, even when wages are included in the fixed cost

FGD LSFO in case of use of liquid fuel

30

Very few data availableProposal : estimate investments using investments for coal plant and relative flue gas ratio (as in the current EGTEI methology)(coal : 358 m3/GJ at 6 % and 289 m3/GJ at 3%?)

Reagent injection and fabric filters

31

53.4

47.0

63.951.5

72.272.2

31.231.237.037.055.8

97.8

70.982.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Thermal power MWth

Investment k€/MWth for lime injection in duct and FF

Work in progress with some French plantsInvestment data would be useful if available elsewhere

ESP and fabric filters

32

33

Ash content of coal

Efficien-cy %

Number of fields

Oulet concentra

-tions

Invest-ments

Plant A (Portugal)

Plant B 33 99.00 4 25 6556

Plant C 17 98 2 150 3951 (ESP alone)

Plant D (France) 12.5 99.8 4 20 23117

Results from the questionnaires for ESP

Investments

34

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

inve

stm

ents

K€/

Nm

3655

639

5123

117

MWth

Investments k€/MWth

EGTEI 45 mg/Nm3

EGTEI 20 mg/Nm3

ESP 30 mg/Nm3

ESP 20 mg/Nm3

ESP 10 mg/Nm3

ESP 5 mg/Nm3

FF 5 mg/Nm3 (125°C)

FF 5 mg/Nm3 (180°C)

PLANT B

PLANT D

Variable operating costs: electricity consumption

35

Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant DCapacity MWe 1256 220 220 600Thermal Power MWth 2564 632 620 1500Capacity of the fan to overcome the pressure drop (flue gas handling)

MW 4.5 3.2 6.0

Capacity for electrodes MW 2.0 not available 1.8

Average load of these equipments %

Electricity consumption MWh/year 6400Cost of electricity €/kWh 0.0955 0.1541 0.001

Variable operating costs: electricity consumption

36

ESP : 500 Pa for 99.6% efficiency

What is the electricity consumption per MWth for different efficiency or ELVs to be obtained (10, 20, 30 or 50 mg/Nm3)? For coal and heavy fuel oil?

1.2 MW/MWth max for 20 mg/Nm3 ELV for coal


Variable operating costs: by-products

37


Plant B Plant C Plant D

Quantity of by-products produced

t by-product/year 379 238 5953 9300000

Price of by-products sold

€/t by-product 0.035 to1.82 - 6

By-products for waste disposal

€/t by-product 3.75 3.75 0

Proportion sold/total amount of by-products % 92.3 0 100

ESP and fabric filters data needed

38

Obtain more recent investments with efficiency data, inlet and oulet concentration, and characteristics of the combustion plant

Proposal of agenda for the next months

39

For mid/end June : finalise FGD LSFO, FF, ESP, SCR, SNCR and LNB for coal plants and liquid fuel plants

For October : finalise FGD by dry injection and FF, for coal plants and fuel plantsFinalise costs for co combustion plants Gas turbine?

egtei – expert group on techno-economic issuestftei.citepa.org/images/files/2013-02-05/2-e… ·...

Documents